There's a lot of BS beginning to infest the media lately regarding both Richard III and the Princes in the Tower which seems to me to be based on a complete lack of understanding regarding DNA and what extracted DNA can actually tell us. Some commentators are even getting DNA confused with carbon dating and hoping that the comparative age of all these bones proves x, y or z.

While I can understand a TV production company which has invested heavily in a project like this protecting their product and maximising their return, I sincerely hope that the same people are not (through press feeds and the like) fuelling this hollow controversy devoid of logic, sense and basic understanding of physics.

I admire Minette for her dogged stand on this issue and the questions she asks which she feels have a bearing on it. While I do not necessarily agree that Richard's armour, for example, would have been saved for "curiosity" purposes or the like, I simply do not see how we can - at so removed a stage - dispel the layers of propagandistic spin in which this story has been cocooned. Her approach is therefore probably one of the most astute in that it starts with a "qui bono" assumption which appears a reasonable one to make and then demands that the little fact which we can all agree on is at least considered in light of that assumption. Those facts which do not lend themselves to agreement are candidates for politically motivated invented testimony, or simply sheer invention itself, as in the case of the deductions made during Wright's inspection of the alleged princes' bones in the 1930s.

Two things are sure, regardless of what claims might be made on the heels of this important new archaeological find (whatever misgivings we might share regarding the method of its find). Nothing of certainty can be established regarding whether the skeleton is Richard's or not, only further theory enhanced by this new data. Secondly, whether or not the skeleton once indeed careered across Bosworth in full armour to its owner's doom, it gets us no nearer establishing any complicity in the death, disappearance, or even the smuggling to safety of the two princes through Richard's agency.

nordmann wrote:

Secondly, whether or not the skeleton once indeed careered across Bosworth in full armour to its owner's doom, it gets us no nearer establishing any complicity in the death, disappearance, or even the smuggling to safety of the two princes through Richard's agency.

So let us return to the the topic...

Minette, one of the many brick walls against which you regularly banged your head was the problem of Elizabeth Woodville's being "mollified" (to use Vergil's odd word) - her trusting Richard enough to hand over her girls to him and then to emerge from sancturary herself.

Nobody took any notice of what you were saying about this, as I recall, although I think Andrew simply observed (unconvincingly!) that EW was a "wily old bird" who would do a deal with anyone, even a man whom she believed had just murdered her little boys.

You may be interested to know that Sarah Gristwood mentions this in her 2012 "Blood Sisters":

"Even more interesting, when Elizabeth herself left sanctuary in 1484, possibly rather later than her daughters, she may have had reason to know that Richard was not guilty of her sons' deaths.

For the rest of Richard's reign Elizabeth Woodville simply disappears. One suggestion which has been made would explain this completely: either or both princes left the Tower alive, and when Elizabeth emerged from sanctuary it was because she had been promised that her sons, or at least the younger of them would be quietly allowed to join her. The elder boy is supposed to have been ill in the summer of 1483, and it is possible that he had died from natural causes. None of the pretenders to Henry VII's throne claimed to be the elder prince, suggesting that he, unlike his brother, was known by then to be dead. They were, in any case, no longer princes but officially royal bastards - of whom there were several already..."

Gristwood mentions in her notes a "secret location", Gipping Hall in Suffolk, a place that I am sure you too have told us about, but I can't remember any details. It was the seat of the Tyrell family and it has apparently been suggested that Elizabeth - and possibly one of her sons - lived there "by permission of the Uncle".

Please refresh our memories on this!

Elizabeth Woodville, and quite a beauty she was.

To wander of topic again. Sorry ID.

Re Richards armour.

Preserving it is probably for Henry a dodgy descision. It provides visible relic of exactly how he came to power. His claim is precarious enough without reminding people he killed the last holder of the post.

Also he may never have had it in the first place it was probably stripped from the body as soon as the battle finished and possibly before any one released who he was.

I agree there bttdp, highly unlikely that the armour would or could have survived and been preserved for future generations to gawk at. Any armour, little on the quality of that of a King, was a very costly piece of equipment and it would have been stripped and filched as fast as possible.

A good suit of armour is the equivalent of a Ferrari in price today and probably fills the same function as a sort of penis substitute a lot will never have seen serious use.

Now Richard will probably have had his hand made to fit him. But in all probability the deformities he is supposed to have had were within the bounds of normal, if there is such a thing, so bearing in mind the holes it probably got " recycled " quite quickly.

Islanddawn wrote:

I agree there bttdp, highly unlikely that the armour would or could have survived and been preserved for future generations to gawk at. Any armour, little on the quality of that of a King, was a very costly piece of equipment and it would have been stripped and filched as fast as possible.

Would it? But by whom? This may be a daft question, but even in the chaos and turmoil of battle, weren't certain "rules" obeyed - for the elite at least? Would ordinary soldiers (even foreign mercenaries and there were a lot of them fighting with/for Henry Tudor) have dared steal the armour of a fallen English *king*? *Orders* were clearly given to strip Richard, but his expensive armour (like his crown, "rescued" by Sir William Stanley) would surely have been known to have been the property of the victor of the battle.

And I wonder if the English did have different rules, even a different battlefield "etiquette" - or is that a ridiculous idea? I'm thinking of Catherine of Aragon here. After Flodden, Surrey sent her (she was acting as Regent at the time - Henry was rampaging around on the continent, pretending, not very successfully, to be Henry V) part of the Scottish king's (James IV) coat of armour as a trophy. Catherine wrote a triumphant letter to Henry: "This battle hath been to your grace and all your realm the greatest honour that could be, and more than ye should win all the crown of France*...Your grace shall see how I can keep my promise, sending you for your banners a king's coat." But Catherine had been restrained - she had actually wanted to send more than just James's coat of armour. She would have liked to send his body (which had been suitably 'bowelled, enbalmed and cered') as well. In this, it seems, she misjudged her adopted country because, she discovered, 'Englishmen's hearts would not suffer it.'

'Englishmen's hearts would not suffer it.' That's an interesting expression. Did the idea of 'That's well out of order' apply - even amidst the hurly-burly of the battlefield (and afterwards)? Looting went on, of course, but was it looting by the rules?





*An excellent example of what *not* to say to Henry VIII, especially if you were a woman.

Anyone could have taken the armour Temp, looting of the dead was par for the course after a battle and Richard lost his crown when he lost the battle and his life. He was king no longer.

According to Hilary Mantel, the English armies certainly did have different rules

' The English will never be forgiven (by the French) for the talent they have always displayed for destruction. English armies laid waste to the land they moved through. As if systematically, they performed every action proscribed by the codes of chivalry, and broke every one of the laws of war. They robbed and raped for 40 miles around the line of their march. They burned the crops in the fields, and the houses with the people inside them. They took bribes in coin and in kind and when they were encamped in a district they made the people pay for every day on which they were left unmolested. They killed priests and hung them up naked in the marketplaces. As if they were infidels, they ransacked churches, packed the chalices in their baggage, fuelled their cooking fires with precious books, they scattered relics and stripped altars. They found out the families of the dead and demanded that the living ransom them, if the living could not pay, they torched the corpses before their eyes, without ceremony, without a single prayer, disposing of the dead as one might the carcases of diseased cattle. This being so, the Kings may forgive each other, the people scarcely can.'

I doubt if the English would have behaved quiet this badly on English soil, but even half as bad would be more than enough.

Deleted???

Didn't I quote that over on the BBC, ID?

Ah, so you are aware that the English were no better nor worse than any other then Temp? You have your answer then.

Sorry, haven't a clue whether or not you quoted it on the Beeb though, I got it out of my book.

Islanddawn wrote:

Ah, so you are aware that the English were no better nor worse than any other then Temp? You have your answer then.

Sorry, haven't a clue whether or not you quoted it on the Beeb though, I got it out of my book.

Of course I know the bloody English are "no better nor worse than any other", ID.

What sad, sad battles are we still all fighting?

I probably got it "out of my book" too. I usually do .

The armour would have been stripped almost as soon as it was safe to do so. Lighter items would have been taken earlier. Things like swords and weapons. Traditionally the best period was the night after a battle the darkness hid the fingers being cut off to get at the rings clothes slashed to get at purses and hidden jewelry and the quick stabs in the night as the wounded were finished off.

As to who did it ? Soldiers of both sides, camp followers, local peasants trying to make up the cost of the loss of livestock and a years harvest. Take your pick.

Temperance wrote:

After Flodden, Surrey sent her (she was acting as Regent at the time - Henry was rampaging around on the continent, pretending, not very successfully, to be Henry V) part of the Scottish king's (James IV) coat of armour as a trophy. Catherine wrote a triumphant letter to Henry: "This battle hath been to your grace and all your realm the greatest honour that could be, and more than ye should win all the crown of France*...Your grace shall see how I can keep my promise, sending you for your banners a king's coat."

I think it was King James' surcoat rather than his armour, Temp.

I knew I had seen this before, took ages to find it again. King James' armour seems to have ended up in Innsbruck of all places;

http://archive.org/stream/scottishhistoric12edinuoft#page/332/mode/2up

Hi Trike - some confusion here. I read "coat of armour" in Giles Tremlett's biography of Catherine of Aragon, but I've just checked the detail in Starkey's "Six Wives". You are right. This is what DS says:

"When the body was stripped, it was discovered that he had died of two serious wounds, one inflicted by an arrow and the other by a pike. Surrey sent part of James's coat-armour (that is, his surcoat of the royal arms of Scotland) to Catherine, along with letters to her and to Henry..."

Starkey repeats the confusing expression "coat-armour" again in his next paragraph, so perhaps Tremlett (and myself) may be forgiven for misunderstanding!

Interestingly, while checking for this detail I came across this snippet in Starkey - from the same chapter describing Catherine's spell as regent:


"Like Surrey in the north, Catherine had spent August mustering and preparing her forces...Catherine marched out from Richmond, with two 'standards of the lion crowned imperial' and with banners bearing the arms of England and Spain and images of the Trinity, the Virgin and St. George...She may even have worn armour, since in September Robert Amadas, the royal goldsmith, was paid for 'garnishing a headpiece with crown gold'."

I seem to remember Mary Queen of Scots making a fashion statement with expensive armour too - as did her husband Darnley.

But this is all off-topic. The point I've been trying to make is that *royal* armour may well have been up for grabs after a battle, but that it would surely not have been any Tom, Dick or Harry who was allowed to do the grabbing.

I don't see why not Temp. The pillaging of a battlefield was how soldiers made money, from the highest right down to the camp followers. The dead (on both sides) paid the price of war with more than their lives and leaders were happy to let it happen, better someone else pay than me?

We know for fact that Richard was stripped naked, and his armour could have been given to anyone as a reward or pieces of it could have been shared between any number of people, or it could have been left for the camp scavengers who followed every army. We also know that Henry Tudor's aim following the battle was to show the utmost contempt for Richard to one and all, what better way than to let his kingly trappings be looted by the peasants? In this current trend to romanticise Richard, I think it is all too often overlooked that he would have been seen by many as undeserving and an upsurper to the crown he gave himself. As, indeed he was.

As an aside and when searching for information just now, I found this fascinating (and horrifying) article on the excavation and archaeological findings on bodies found in a mass grave from the battlefield of Towton. With evidence like this continually being uncovered our view of medieval warfare and supposed battlefield etiquette of the time needs radical revision, imo.

http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20Towton.htm

Islanddawn wrote:

We know for fact that Richard was stripped naked, and his armour could have been given to anyone as a reward or pieces of it could have been shared between any number of people, or it could have been left for the camp scavengers who followed every army. We also know that Henry Tudor's aim following the battle was to show the utmost contempt for Richard to one and all, what better way than to let his kingly trappings be looted by the peasants? In this current trend to romanticise Richard, I think it is all too often overlooked that he would have been seen by many as undeserving and an upsurper to the crown he gave himself. As, indeed he was.

I take your points, but I am still not convinced that Henry Tudor would have been so foolish as to set such a dangerous precedent. Surely it was one thing to allow fellow nobles to profit from the deaths of aristocratic opponents - even allowing them booty from a fallen king - but would *peasants* really have been allowed to have a free-for-all with the body and trappings of someone of Richard's undoubted status? He had been after all an anointed king, and there was still some mystique attached to that. Wouldn't the stripping and identification of bodies - and the possible distribution of superior spoils taken from the *elite* - have been supervised to some extent? There was usually some kind of battlefield discipline surely, even amid the general chaos?

I've always thought (and I could easily be wrong - I really know nothing about all this) that a pretty careful post-battle tally was, where possible, made of the fallen elite (and their possessions?) - we have a list of the dead after Flodden:

"Casualties were very heavy and amongst the 10,000 killed were twelve earls, thirteen barons, five heirs to titles, three bishops, two abbots - and a king."

Is is true to say that the ruling class *generally* did not expose its members - even enemies - to the mockery of the lower orders? Inviting scorn and contempt from the peasants was, after all, a pretty dangerous game to play. Wasn't Margaret of Anjou judged to have made a bad mistake when she did just that after the Battle of Wakefield - all that very unwise putting of a paper crown on the head of the Duke of York business? And there is some evidence that there *were* murmurings in and around Leicester against Henry Tudor for the contempt shown to Richard III's body - the discontent being one of the reasons why Tudor later ordered some kind of monument to be erected (albeit a cheapskate one that was never finished) to mark the site of Richard's grave. I wonder if any part of it was recovered during the recent excavations?

But, ID, when all is said and done, I don't really have a clue about armour or battlefield etiquette - we need a real expert to help us here. I googled, "What happened to Richard III's armour after Bosworth" and was directed here - back to myself actually, which I found most unhelpful.

Quote :

... but would *peasants* really have been allowed to have a free-for-all with the body and trappings of someone of Richard's undoubted status?

Yes. Never underrate the *peasant*. It is a much misunderstood status in medieval history with regard to its function, influence and ability.

Also, never assume there are rules which prevail in a battle.

Also, never forget the church in any of its local guises in these situations. There wasn't much happened without those guys checking for angles.

nordmann wrote:

Yes. Never underrate the *peasant*. It is a much misunderstood status in medieval history with regard to its function, influence and ability.

Also, never assume there are rules which prevail in a battle.

Also, never forget the church in any of its local guises in these situations. There wasn't much happened without those guys checking for angles.

Terse but interesting comments, Nordmann.

So what were the "local guises" in this particular situation?

Morton was actually at the Battle of Bosworth - would he have been advising Tudor on what to do - and allow - with regard to Richard's body???

Innocent VIII and Alexander VI were supporters of Henry Tudor, I believe. Now why should that be? What did the Vatican stand to gain from a new regime in England? The Pope was scared of the French, I think, but wasn't Tudor - in 1485 at least, although not later - allied with the French? It was Richard who loathed the French after all. Or was it, as usual, all about money? The popes were usually nearly bankrupt around this time.

All very confusing and not really to do with dented armour.

And how do you define "peasant"? I suppose it *is* a word bandied about far too much by folk (like me) who don't really understand all the stuff about "function, influence and ability".

Keyed a post earlier but it seems to have gone walkabout.

The only people with the time to strip the dead are the lower orders. If you think of knights and men at arms as tanks it helps. They would have carried the bulk of the hand to hand fighting and once the battle lines have broken they mount up and harrass the broken enemy. Leaving the pbi to clear up the field.

At this point peasant covers a band of society in modern terms from dole dodger to lower middle class. The baldric serf stereotype is pretty much obsolete.

Reminds me of a case discussed on an earlier thread here - when William Rufus was at the wrong end of an arrow in the New Forest it was left to the local charcoal burner to take it upon himself to scoop up his royal highness onto his own cart and then wander round the district until he found a priory which would take the stiff in. The knobs who had been with him, who seemingly all assumed that a takeover was in progress, were in the meantime high-tailing it back to their respective manors to make sure no one had moved in!

Quote :

So what were the "local guises" in this particular situation?

Good question. One thing which we can be reasonably certain about is that Richard and his vanguard would have been accompanied by priests in Richard's employment, probably members of the college he had recently commissioned in York for the welfare and repose of the soul of his late son (and some say for his own - he was planning ahead). Part of these priests' duties was of course to ensure as far as possible that their employer, if felled in battle, had as honourable a transition into purgatory as possible in the circumstances. This was a standard arrangement and generally honoured by the richer protagonists in these encounters, and we just don't know whether they had time to do this or not. It could easily have been though that they, if demanded to hand over the corpse, then divested it of all reliquary material first.

Everyone is jumping to all too many conclusions about both his hump and his reported nakedness when exposed on a horse afterwards (allegedly). Not to mention the relative "bastardness" anyway of both claimants to the throne. If his corpse was exhibited (in the days before mass media) it would have been primarily for local effect and probably at local instigation.

I have been trying to find out more about the rules of "chivalry" - respect for the dead and such like - but apparently such fanciful ideas were completely divorced from the reality of war.

It seems that you are all correct in what you say, and that I, alas, have been living in a Victorian never-never land. How very depressing.

"It seems that the knight’s disregard for his opposite number on the battlefield proves that no code of chivalry was followed or even existed during the Wars of the Roses. It could also be surmised that ‘true’ chivalry was destroyed in England at the first battle of St Albans in 1455 and that the Wars of the Roses saw the death of chivalry as an effective code of honour. So it would remain until the Victorians and Romantic poets reinvented these codes of honour and dressed them up in the courtly romances of the Arthurian legends detracting from chivalry’s true and bloody purpose."


Ironic too that Caxton published Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" - that story of chivalry and death by betrayal - just nine days after the Battle of Bosworth.

nordmann wrote:

Reminds me of a case discussed on an earlier thread here - when William Rufus was at the wrong end of an arrow in the New Forest it was left to the local charcoal burner to take it upon himself to scoop up his royal highness onto his own cart and then wander round the district until he found a priory which would take the stiff in. The knobs who had been with him, who seemingly all assumed that a takeover was in progress, were in the meantime high-tailing it back to their respective manors to make sure no one had moved in!

Either that or busy getting on the good side of the new one, a dead king is exactly that. Gone, done, over and no longer use to anyone.

Temperance wrote:

Ironic too that Caxton published Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" - that story of chivalry and death by betrayal - just nine days after the Battle of Bosworth.

Interesting, so myth and fantasy have eventually replaced historical fact in the minds of future generations? Does this mean that the historical gumph like Braveheart and the Boleyns that are churned out for tv and cinema will eventually become 'fact' in the future? Scary thought, but this is off topic and would be best suited to the Myth thread. I'd best shut up now.

Islanddawn wrote:

Temperance wrote:

Ironic too that Caxton published Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" - that story of chivalry and death by betrayal - just nine days after the Battle of Bosworth.

Interesting, so myth and fantasy have eventually replaced historical fact in the minds of future generations? Does this mean that the historical gumph like Braveheart and the Boleyns that are churned out for tv and cinema will eventually become 'fact' in the future? Scary thought, but this is off topic and would be best suited to the Myth thread. I'd best shut up now.

And what exactly is historical fact? Is it the same as truth?

I think there is a kind of truth in Malory's translations of the old tales, just as there is truth in the great religious texts; but such works were never meant to be read as "fact". Truth, *the* truth and fact aren't necessarily synonymous. And is it really fair to link Malory's work with the crap the scriptwriters of "Braveheart", "The Other Boleyn Girl", "The Tudors" etc. offer us? Malory's still being read - and thought about - after five hundred years: I doubt that Gregory's and Gibson's oeuvres will last so long (but you never know ). Can't remember who did the script for "The Tudors" - Michael somebody or other.

Myths/legends aren't meant to be read *literally* - I honestly despair that so many people can't understand that; but I also despair that people dismss the great myths - not just those in the Bible, but those from the Greeks too - as nonsense we have outgrown, no more than stories for gullible children. They are stories, but incredibly important ones that suggest to us a kind of truth about ourselves and our natures. We need our myths! Throw them away with a shrug and a sneer - and lofty comments about "historical fact" - and we'll soon find ourselves living in a Huxleian nightmare. Which perhaps we already are - perhaps always have been - if you think Thomas, that is, rather than Aldous. But that way madness lies...

But when all is said and done, lofty comments about historical facts are entirely appropriate here on a history board - it's me who's out of order with attempts at lofty comments about truth. I'm not just on the wrong thread, I'm in the wrong place altogether. Perhaps it's just as well I'm taking a little break - off to Babylon tomorrow to see "Swan Lake", to admire Cecil Beaton's war photos and to search for the grave of a crazy evolutionist.

"And now the whole ROUND TABLE is dissolved,
Which was an image of the mighty world,
And I, the last, go forth companionless;
And the days darken round me, and the years
Among new men, strange faces, other minds."


(Tennyson, not Malory )

PS Before anyone points it out, I do know it was rumoured that Malory was a rapist, a church robber , an extortioner and a would-be murderer, but what the heck, we can't all be perfect.

If Richard III armour was so expensive is it not possible that Henry VII who was known as being rather careful with his money had it away and melted down for its scrap value.

It seems that Leicester has won the battle of the bones. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20116118

MadNan wrote:

If Richard III armour was so expensive is it not possible that Henry VII who was known as being rather careful with his money had it away and melted down for its scrap value.

A suit of armour wouldn't have had that much value as scrap, but I would have thought Richard's armour would have had considerable value as a prestige gift to give to a valued follower or ally. As has been mentioned above James IV's armour stripped from his body after Flodden was presumably presented by Thomas Howard to Henry VIII who then seems to have given it to the Holy Roman Emperor .... not to use as armour but as a curiosity/souvenir and a potent symbol of Henry's might (despite of course that Henry was galivanting about in northern France at the time and it was Catherine of Aragon and the Earl of Surrey who actually organised England's defence and fought the battle).

Re Flodden, there was a merchant by the name of William Gur who recovered around 600 suits of armour from the battlefield. Some were sold and 350 deposited with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

MadNan wrote:

If Richard III armour was so expensive is it not possible that Henry VII who was known as being rather careful with his money had it away and melted down for its scrap value.

If it wasn't to damaged the selling it on a a suit makes more sense. If it is damaged the you can cut it up to make brigadines. Tiny squares rivited to a cloth or leather support similar to a jacket and worn instead of full armour by rich and poor.

Melting it down would be costly if you need to really get rid of it then there are plenty of rivers.

Hope this isn't a daft question, but how often were gold and silver used to decorate armour? Was "silvering" and "gilding" only done on royal for-posing-purposes-only armour? Would such beautiful and costly suits ever have been worn in serious warfare? I know Henry VIII's armour was silvered - and copper alloy was often used for decoration too - with stunning effect. But then Henry, like his father, was not a great one for actually fighting in bloody battles, although he did enjoy showing off in the rituals of the joust and the tournament.



Silvered and engraved armour,
about 1515


What is it?
This silvered and engraved armour belonged to King Henry VIII and was decorated by Paul van Vrelant in Greewich, London. It is accompanied by elaborately engraved, Flemish-made horse armour.
Where is it from?
This armour was possibly one of the first works produced in Henry’s new workshop at Greenwich in about 1515; the horse armour was imported from Flanders, and the whole harness was decorated with engraving, silvering and originally gilding by a Flemish goldsmith, working for the King in London.
What does it tell us about its royal owner?
The decoration celebrates the marriage of Henry to Katherine of Aragon. This can be seen in the edge of the skirt which features intertwined initials of Henry and Katherine and the pattern of scrolling foliage with Tudor roses and pomegranates of Aragon all over the armour.
The wings of the poleyns bear the sheaf of arrows badge of King Ferdinand II of Aragon, Katherine’s’ father and the toecaps of the sabatons have the castle badge of Katherine’s mother, Queen Isabella of Castile.
The bard (horse armour) is decorated with scenes for the lives of Henry and Katherine’s patron saints, St George and St Barbara. The bard is stamped with the ‘M’ mark ascribed to Guille Margot, a Flemish armourer working in Brussels for the Habsburg monarchy.

---

Temperance wrote:

Hope this isn't a daft question, but how often were gold and silver used to decorate armour? Was "silvering" and "gilding" only done on royal for-posing-purposes-only armour? Would such beautiful and costly suits ever have been worn in serious warfare? I know Henry VIII's armour was silvered - and copper alloy was often used for decoration too - with stunning effect. But then Henry, like his father, was not a great one for actually fighting in bloody battles, although he did enjoy showing off in the rituals of the joust and the tournament.



Silvered and engraved armour,
about 1515


What is it?
This silvered and engraved armour belonged to King Henry VIII and was decorated by Paul van Vrelant in Greewich, London. It is accompanied by elaborately engraved, Flemish-made horse armour.
Where is it from?
This armour was possibly one of the first works produced in Henry’s new workshop at Greenwich in about 1515; the horse armour was imported from Flanders, and the whole harness was decorated with engraving, silvering and originally gilding by a Flemish goldsmith, working for the King in London.
What does it tell us about its royal owner?
The decoration celebrates the marriage of Henry to Katherine of Aragon. This can be seen in the edge of the skirt which features intertwined initials of Henry and Katherine and the pattern of scrolling foliage with Tudor roses and pomegranates of Aragon all over the armour.
The wings of the poleyns bear the sheaf of arrows badge of King Ferdinand II of Aragon, Katherine’s’ father and the toecaps of the sabatons have the castle badge of Katherine’s mother, Queen Isabella of Castile.
The bard (horse armour) is decorated with scenes for the lives of Henry and Katherine’s patron saints, St George and St Barbara. The bard is stamped with the ‘M’ mark ascribed to Guille Margot, a Flemish armourer working in Brussels for the Habsburg monarchy.

---

Hi Temp,

It possibly was used in combat. But you wouldn't have found a lot of it floating about. Armour breaks down into two types Tournament, used in jousting tends to be a bit thicker and heavier. Field Armour weighs in a bit of the weight for increased maneuverability. judging by the pictures of the time it seems to have been either painted or chemically treated to turn it black. Although we know that some armies favoured just polished steel and in germany helmets were sometimes painted in heraldic designs.

It would have been a matter of taste I suppose one bloke will want to wear it another wouldnt.

Talking about polished armour ... can I just air one particular gripe of mine: all these re-enactment suits made of stainless steel!

No current Leicester dig/Dicky III report seems to be complete without a couple of medieaval chappies dressed in shiny silver-coloured armour. But it's not right. Plain carbon steel, even if polished with jewellers' rouge or fine diamond paste to a mirror finish, still relects light as bluey-grey, rather than silvery-white.

I realise that a stainless steel armour suit is easier to keep in good order, and I know how hard it must be these days to get squires who are sufficiently willing and competant to spend hours hand polishing armour with fine sand, ashes, or bunches of horsetail plants, but I thought all this re-enactment malarky was supposed to be about historical accuracy. Therefore note, stainless steel was not invented until the mid 19th century.

So please, no more "authentic" extras who look like they're covered in aluminium foil.

One happy careful user, yet only showed off in, never used. Sums it up? I thought I was answering other posts but appear to be here. The thing is Meles meles, lovely name, kings, princes etc of this period were not meant to be seen! Commynes does a great piece on Louis at Picquiney where he has to wear the dowdy clothes of the KIng! Not a happy bunny. At Bosworth not only did Richard NOT have a double as was the custom but made himself very conspicuous. Odd. certainly unusual. And I don't know why!
However, I am a Welsh liberal vicar's daughter whose always loved History and trained as a journalist. I should not care about Richard III, the last truly English King, I love Glyndwr! But there is something so wrong about it all. AND I HATE BuLLIES! Think as I do or sit on the naughty step, an apologist, revisionist, Ricardian! I read History and Politics at Warwick and admired Stalin. So Clever and devious. Richard III was nothing like him!
BUT the people who wrote about him were and still are. Repent! Be a True Historian! Sod off. Richard is guilty until proven right. WHY? Edward the Black Prince, Henry V and so many others killed thousands! But they are Heroes,they killed French people. BUT how many people realise that from Henry Tudor we had a French invasion? Edward IV, Hastings, Morton etc., took bribes from the French, not Richard and Commynes says from then on he was a marked man. 1485 marks the time from when we had Government by consent to a centralized Government like France. No more, My Lord, more, Your Royal Highness. No more livery and maintenance meant a central, standing army and navy at the kings command. All Henry VII's doing.
The nobles seem to be endlessly shocked by Tudor rule, who would rule by terror. Richard III was the last king to play by their rules of consent. The two year and two month reign of Richard III was the most enlightened until ...After the Tudors. He got rid of benefices, made rules in English not Latin so all could understand, he stopped jury tampering and gave people a voice! ALL Forgotten now we have MILLAIS' painting of the Princes in the Tower. Blonde Arian creatures who belong on chocolate boxes. Prove Richard III was a man, let alone a good one! WHY? All monarchs since 1485 have gained their right to rule through their RELATIONSHIP TO A TUDOR. Don't be royal be rich!

May I ask one more off-topic question about armour before returning to Richard?

I've been wondering what happened to Joan of Arc's armour after her defeat and execution in 1431. I believe a special suit was commissioned for her by Charles VII - it was reputed to have cost the French king the equivalent of 100 war horses.

Joan, we know, was involved in some real fighting. Either she or her armour - or both - must have been remarkably sturdy. Could a suit of "white iron" have been made which was light enough to have been worn by a woman, yet one which was still robust enough to have offered her adequate protection in the most demanding of battle conditions? Joan of course must have been seriously fit (used to heavy farm work?) and was perhaps quite able to cope with standard weight equipment. She wasn't very tall though - under five feet, I believe. (But then Richard III was not big and burly either, by all accounts).

I don't suppose Joan would have wanted fancy, frilly armour as shown here - Cate Blanchett doing Elizabeth at Tilbury. All very dramatic, but hardly practical with that mass of red Tudor hair flying loose - looks lovely, but definite health and safety issues there!

She doesn't look that sturdy to me.



Mind you, they got the colour right. The "blanc harnoys" wasn't white, more a gun metal shade. "White" refers to its consistency in the forging process.

She left the White Harness armour with the monks in the St Denis Abbey after her failure at Paris. She then used a more basic (and probably much more usable) suit of armour for the rest of her business. Nothing is known about what happened to them subsequently.

Here's a picture of probably the only remaining piece of armour owned by Joan. It's in the Metropolitan Museum in New York who bought it from the Dino-Talleygrand-Perigourd collection. Originally it had been a venerated object in the church of Saint-Pierre-du-Martroi at Orléans.



It's a bassinet shallow helmet (missing its visor) and has been damaged in the past by an arrow head. The reason we can only say probably is that there is no record of her donating it, and in any case it was well known that she shunned using a helmet anyway. High ranking military leaders tended to prefer soft hoods or helmets which did not hide their faces.

Kelvingrove has an exceptional armour collection, some of the best of which was originally owned by Randolph Hearst.
This is said to be the oldest almost complete set of armour anywhere; Milanese field armour, from c. 1440.



Don't worry, Richard III isn't going anywhere soon, we'll get back to him.

Thank you for the info, nordmann - I'd love to see that helmet in New York. I have no idea why I am so interested in armour - I usually find battles and fighting quite *uninteresting*. It's the craftsmanship involved that I find so fascinating, I think: some of those suits of armour were wonderful works of art.

And the thought of Joan of Arc donning that helmet before going to face the English sends shivers down my spine.

ferval wrote:

Don't worry, Richard III isn't going anywhere soon, we'll get back to him.

I know. I've just read something about Richard that would make Minette really cross. It's in a little book about the Tudors by Richard Rex which I've just started. Blinking *first* page and he says: "His (Henry VII's) accession owed less to the innate strength of his claim or of his position than to the staggering ineptitude of his predecessor, Richard III, in dissipating within just a couple of years the legacy of political consensus which Edward IV had painstakingly accumulated for the Yorkist dynasty".

"Staggering ineptitude" - that's surely a bit harsh.

Rex is Director of Studies in History at Queens' College, Cambridge - these Cambridge men really do not like Richard one little bit. I wonder if Andrew Spencer was taught by Rex? Mind you old Catty was an Oxford man and he was just as bad.

Does anyone else remember this series from the early 70's?

This is the only video I can find, Part 1 of Episode 1;

Triceratops wrote:

Does anyone else remember this series from the early 70's?

This is the only video I can find, Part 1 of Episode 1;

I've got the whole series on DVD - in glorious black and white! It's superb. James Maxwell will always be Henry VII for me, just as Keith Michell will always be Henry VIII.

I was horrified when the DVD arrived because it was an import, and the blurb on the box was all in Dutch - "De BBC klassieker over koning Hendrik VII als stichter van de Tudor-dynastie".

I had visions of having to listen to Henry, Elizabeth of York, Margaret Beaufort, Lincoln, Perkin Warbeck and the rest - even, God help us, the Earl of Kildare - all babbling away in Dutch (with English subtitles). Thank God it was actually in English - the original soundtrack!!

I was quite impressed by an MP during the discussion about the burial of you-know-who suddenly callng out, 'A hearse a hearse, my kingdom for a hearse.'

All right I'll go now - but would that have been recorded in Hansard? I do hope so.

I feel refreshed when I come here! So much to see and watch, damn it! Thanks SST, Nordmann, Tricorps and Prisilla, hope I haven't missed anyone out. Sorry!
When I want to spur myself on I watch an episode of "The Tower" where
Alison Weir wonders down the choir at Westminster and then stands in front of the Wren Urn spouting Charles II on Richard III! Works everytime. The irony of it all! I fell for Charles II, Goodness knows why, he was so....reasonable and interesting after all which had gone before, when I was 11. Wrote to Tom Bazalgette who asked me to join the RSS when 14, didn't know why and still don't. It was said I made Compton Macenzie laugh. Great! My two histortical interests kill each other!
Of course you must know by now that I'm completely potty, in a questioning sort of way but then most people are interested in Richard III. A study in evil? Or a study in early propoganda for the non-royal Tudors? Why have, "the Wars of the Roses" suddenly become so Hollywood?
I came across an article on "Rev" which I'd been meaning to watch the other day, and he said his grandpa had been Rector of Stoke Bruerne (in stately terms,hah! Not a clergy child, hot water bottles a treat!) which is where he got his "background" from; he saw him pulling on his pipe, smiling at the study window. Of course we can't name names but this man took over from my father and was a brute. He stopped post, prevented mum/us from visiting the family grave etc..Much more nastiness, but I've always disliked army "padres" they are never normal. I was at univ at the time but picked up on the misery, not only to my own family.
But it made me think. How lucky I was to be brought up so near to Grafton, know the Manor when owned by a family and having been shown real things of interest before the tourist trade. And having dad, both grandpas and assorted relations as Clergy. It makes it hard to tell a lie! Guilt!
My brother says he wishes we'd been beaten, instead we'd go to the naughty step and think! I think this is what my obsession about Richard III is about, the truth...Isn't this what History is about? Cutting through propoganda?
I've just been told that said brother saw Starkey at a Fire Work display! How I'd like to talk to him and ask, "why"?
Next step must be Bishop Rowan before he retires to let the Evangelical Wing play. We met over Bonhoffer and Bells and Smells, he's still "top dog" for now, having married Charles and Camilla, surely the Old Peculiar, the Queen or Westminster Abbey owes him a slight favour? The Wren Urn must be looked at. In 1933 Dentists, Tanner and Wright, assuming the bones and teeth were Edward V and Richard of York, argued with each other! No Carbon dating or DNA. It must be allowed after Leicester. Or else! By the way, who came up with idea of burying the bones, if they are his, of Richard III, in Leicester cathedral? A place of no consequence or to his life, only to his death. It must be Westminster, St George's Windsor or Middleham, Yorkshire. Hopefully the Church can over rule the State on this. If they try.
You may well know this but Henry VII started building as an "offering" for Henry VI, but it became so large and beautiful he took it for himself, mother Margaret Beaufort and wife Elizabeth. During its building he removed many graves. Henry V's wife, Katherine de Valois, his "treasured" Lancastrian ancestor became a tourist attraction and Samuel Pepys writes about her and how he kissed he lovely nose. Richard III's wife, Anne Neville was lost, a small coat of arms marks a spot of no particular importance and it goes on.
One thing I'm proud of in Wales is that we have so many saints, we actually look after them! And the first time I attended Westminster Abbey for Eucharist I was shocked by the chaos of the service, accolytes wondering about willy nilly and the great procession was a shambles! The Dean, choir and choir masters all went in different directions! It would never have happened at Llandaff! Yet Westminster is a show place for the world, well, so we are told.

My apologies for sounding grumpy but if it wasn't for it's History, the powers that be would at Westminster would seem to allow it to descend to a rendezvous point - "India darling! I've kept your gin cool just look at this lovely place! I believe we're standing on Thomas Hardy's body the heart is somewhere rural, and the Romantics are over there! It's such fun; oh dear Jimmy Chu caught up by Dr Johnson! A tale to tell at dinner parties and do you know I believe for a sum, they do weddings too? Really!"
And so it may be asked why do "the Dean and Chapter" worry about removing the Wren Urn to be analysed? It has become so far removed from the place of worship it was intended to be.

I shouldn't have sent this! Oh dear! Accumalated things and out of practise.
Sorry.

Glad you sent it Minette...... a great ramble. Being prone to them myself I enjoyed yours. This site is not given to them much as everyone else seems to have so much time as to be able to googlee about and download assorted pictures and similar. Though admit much of it is entertaining....... especially if you like cats.

I ought confess that I am a quarter Welsh - my grandmother apparently was a fluent Welsh speaker and sang it all day long too when she wasn't laughing about the world about her. ... She was brought here to live in Essex so that's understandable..I can guess where my ramble streak originates.

Anyway, good to see you here from time to time. hopefully you will rev up a bit of contention too. It's awful quiet here.... we all like each other though they may find me odd, perhaps.

Glad to see you here again Minette and Priscilla nice to see you here again as well. I also fell in love with Charles the Second, but only when he was played by Rufus Sewell, I looked up the real thing and he was not so acceptable so to speak!!!

Hi Rambling Min!

Hope we see some more of you.

There must be something seriously wrong with me - I've never really liked Charles II, not even Rufus Sewell.

Oliver's the man for me - but must be Richard Harris.

So much for Weir and her pronouncements! I joined the Richard III Society because I was fed up reading in the index of a book - RIII Journal.....To much jesting. I am not a "joiner". But then I read Hicks - the model of all knowledge - and one simple, well-researched article from the "Ricardian Bulletin" spins him off course BUT the writers have no official backers, official publishers etc., they simply make sense. We so often underestimate people's intelligence. But also over-estimate others because they are in print, look to fifty grey hairs taking the nation by storm! WHY!? Because someone is famous doesn't mean they are right!

I read "Richard III, a Much Maligned King" years ago and thought it intriuging. It made me think. I've now been able to ask Anette Carson on the Richard III site, questions about the cost the National Portrait Gallery asks for publishig prints to when the really first banned Titulus Regius was found at the Tower of London. I'd written to the Chief Curator there about it a lot with no answer! SAEs included! She's a lovely lady and gives you all the info you need and more, no charge.

SST, Ferval, Z and Precilla, So many things to say! I adored Richard Harris! So sneaky to put that there! He was gorgous! But not as Cromwell. The first film I saw and stood up to shout at it! Historically inaccurate and Harris would NOT have liked Military Juntas! He was Irish, DROGHEDA! The RUMP Parliament was called thus for a reason; Cromwell only allowed those Presbyterians he approved of through. Not freedom of religion and why is he outside Parliament? He had no time for freedom of speach or religion. But Hurrah for Richard Harris, Actor! Mind you Rufus Sewell is scrumptious as Charles II, Zen or anyone!

But back to Weir...What a come down, she is a prolific writer. But, she reminds me of the olden days when I was at school. I've looked her up and believe she's older than I am and didn't go to university. Having an ultra intelligent older sister who turned down an Oxbridge place I didn't aspire to anything, I was simply enthusiastic. I did what I did because I loved it, there was nothing to prove. I was the thick one, so freedom. But I do remember when A'Level results came out those who didn't do well were offered places at Teacher's Training College which in retrospect must be wrong! But also with hindsight apart from my very best friend who also turned down Oxbridge, I think I was the only girl in my year who was offered a place at an ordinary university. I had to get an A in A'Level History to get into Warwick but that was the norm. Alison Weir didn't "do" History at university. The publicity which surrounds her background is very vague.

I don't believe I'm being an intellectual snob but it seems to me as a I get older that there is a reason why people say, "It's not my subject". When I did A' level History I hoped I could "specialize" but it was divided up into British and European History and then at University it grew greater tentacles! Of course History is all about cause and effect but I now appreciate that it really does help IF one knows a little about the background one's "specialist subject" is set against. And yet, we are not ping pong balls, Eleanor of Aquitaine does not have very much in common with Katherine Swynford. They are seperated by two hundred years and a sea of cultural experiences. One was a French queen of culture and chivalry, born to be royal and breed princes, the other was a beautiful nanny from the midlands born to sire farmers for a Saxon husband.

I liked/likeThomas Hardy. and was told to collect information on pig breeding in the 1870s. It took me ages! Hardy was correct. I don't think I'm slow on the up-take but realize just how long it would take me to really understand the differences between Eleanor of Aquitaine and Kathrine Swynford. And this is why people have their "subjects". It has taken me years to study the later Plantengents, who was related to whom and why, their wards and attorneys, Parishes, the differences between canonical law and temporal in the c15th, the set up of London - for example, when Richard of Gloucester "dumped" Edward V in St Paul's Churchyard, it's left out that this is where the Bishop of London had his Palace and was his guest and Cheapside was one of the busiest places in London! Like "hiding" someone in Picadilly Circus! How I have trawled around London with maps in hand...Charterhouse, Bishopsgate, Aldgate...

In brief, I don't believe that Alison Weir has the slightest idea what she writes about for most of the time. She may love history and being called a Historian, she writes fast and furiously and is easily accessible, no doubt she is very wealthy and has become to believe in her publisher's publicity. But it is very sad. People with hungry minds will read her works and believe them. Jean Plaidy, Norah Lofts, Georgette Heyer all out rank Alison Weir; they wrote greater prose and had a far more profound knowledge of History than Alison Weir has ever shown and yet they are seen as "Romantic Novelists". All I can say is read Norah Loft's, "The House at Old Vine" trilogy then compare and contrast it to anything Alison Weir has written. How I would love your comments.
(Other reading would be Daphne du Marier's, "The House on the Strand" it's about TIME and the Margaret Stewart trilogy begining with,"The Cyrstal Cave", concerning the Merlin and Arthur of History. You will not be disappointed, I promise.

That picture! He's gorgeous! Richard Harries,(Irish) Richard Burton (Welsh) and Peter O'Toole(Irish) and the latterday Timothy Dalton(Welsh) the Celtic brothers and Lady Killers, Celtic Cyriads. Not only the looks but the voices. Alan Rickman's voice (English) is almost there (great in Private Lives!) but not quite.
What's left to be said? Oh I've two copies of portraits of Charles II in the lounge, not this one.

It reminds me of Althorpe when I was really into my Charles IInd phase; they had a long gallery there full of Charles II portraits and his mistresses. The boring guide eventually left and I was so happy I managed three cartwheels along the red carpet before anyone came for me! Yippeee! It really was such fun! We can't allow these portraits to be sold off! They are too important to the nation to end up in the lobby of some American Law firm or the apartment of a trillionaire banker in Chicago. Money cannot buy everything....Yes I know Donald Trump nearly bought Aberdeen from Alec Salmon, but some of us Brits still have morals. Don't we?

Thought about you today, Minette, as I read this in Susan Brigden's 2012 biography of Thomas Wyatt. A casual use of a word, but one which speaks volumes about attitudes and prejudices. Brigden (I actually admire her tremendously, so I'm surprised at her careless [?] use of language) is writing about the tight-knit community of Kent. Speaking of Sir Richard Haute of Bishopsbourne she says:

"Surviving his capture during Richard of Gloucester's coup d'etat, he lived under the tyrant in quiet obscurity."

How's that for emotive choice of diction? Not "he lived under the new king", or even " he lived under the usurper", but " he lived under the tyrant".

Happens all the time - casual throwaway word, but it's still a kind of indoctrination.